Ljp v Grgp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Baron |
| Judgment Date | 15 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2277 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: MA02D417 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 15 October 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 2277 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
P DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mrs Justice Baron
Case No: MA02D417
Louise Bancroft (instructed by Cobbetts) for the Applicant
Ann Hussey (instructed by Jones Myers Gordon) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 19 th , 21 st July—24 th July 2004
The delay in formally handing down this Judgment is due to the unavailability of Counsel to argue costs and deal with points arising.
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment is being handed down in private on …………. It consists of ……. pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Mrs Justice Baron
1) This is an application by Linda Jane P (to whom I shall refer as the "Wife") for full financial relief arising from her marriage to George Richard Gordon (to whom I shall refer as the "Husband"). The parties were married on the 11 th December 1976—when they were aged almost 19 years and 21 years respectively. They separated in November 2001 after virtually 25 years of marriage. They have two children, namely Kelly Louise P, who was born on the 31 st July 1979 and Thomas George P, who was born on the 5 th March 1981. Both children are now financially independent and work in the family business.
2) The parties have spent some £360,000 in pursuit of the issues in this case. The Wife's costs total some £205,000. The entire amount is due because, although her costs' schedule indicates that £82,000 has been paid, this has been funded by way of a litigation loan which is still outstanding. The Husband's costs total some £156,000. This sum has been paid using his company Director's loan account which is currently overdrawn to the extent of £220,000. Thus, in reality, all of these substantial costs remain due. I have found myself wondering whether the monies expended on this litigation would have been more effectively used to deal with the parties' real needs following upon divorce. No doubt, the costs will be a matter of keen submission after judgement.
The position of the parties .
3) The Wife seeks a clean break. Her main aim is to secure the former matrimonial home (free of mortgage) plus a lump sum of £1.1 million (payable in 3 tranches over the next 15 months). She also seeks her indemnity costs.
4) The Husband asserts that a clean break is not possible because the most valuable asset in the case is his interest in the family companies which he claims are essentially illiquid. In the light of this, and because he needs funds to pay his Director's loan and fund a home, he wishes the former matrimonial home to be sold with the proceeds divided equally. He offers to split endowment policies and a pension policy equally together with giving the Wife a 30% stake in his shareholdings (such transfers to be effected in a tax efficient manner). He is prepared to periodical payments at the rate of £1,800 per month (viz £21,600 per annum). The Husband submits that no order as to costs is the proper outcome.
The Factual Matrix .
5) I will set out the relevant facts as I find them. For the avoidance of doubt, insofar as the matters set out differ from the evidence of the Husband, the Wife, a Mr Collins or the expert accountants, this is because I have preferred the evidence of another or because I consider that the documents produced confirm my finding of fact.
6) The Husband was born on the 10th November 1955 (thus he is 48 years old). It seems that he comes from an entrepreneurial family. As long ago as 1906 his great-grandfather set up in business as a coal merchant. I have been shown a grainy photograph of this gentleman wearing a cloth cap outside his modest home. His son followed him into the coal business and, in due time, the Husband's father, Eric P, and uncle, Stanley P, ("the Brothers") also worked as coal merchants. By 1955 this business went under the rubric of G P & Sons Limited. To my mind this early history is only of peripheral relevance and I do not consider it as central to my decision because the original business was very different from the valuable dealerships which the family business was to become.
7) With the passage of time, as the use of coal began to decline, the Brothers decided to diversify into the sale of petrol and motor cars through a company called EW and S P Limited (to which I shall refer as "Ps"). That company was owned 50–50 by each brother. It seems that by 1963, the Brothers had acquired Vauxhall and Bedford van dealerships which they operated from a showroom at Earby.
8) The Husband has sought to make a good deal of the origins of this business because it was started by the Brothers on the site of the old coal yard (which had been owned by earlier generations). I accept that, when the parties met in 1973, the garage business was already in being. By this time, it was operated from a new site at Kelbrook which originally consisted of a couple of petrol pumps and a kiosk. There has been a dispute about the date when a showroom (with accommodation above) was built on this site. The Husband suggests it was 1971, the Wife says that the development occurred after they began dating. I do not consider that I need to make a precise finding because it is clear that, whatever the date, the showrooms were built at the instigation of the Brothers. Thus, I am clear that the origins of the business were laid down by the Husband's family prior to the marriage although, in relative terms, it was a very modest business at that time.
9) Upon leaving school, the Husband had various jobs (including a toolmaker) but in about 1975, he joined Ps where he worked, first, as a mechanic and, later, as a salesman.
The Wife .
10) The Wife was born on the 13 th December 1957 (thus she is 46 years old). She was at Keighly Technical College when she met the Husband. In 1974 she began working at the Bradford and Bingley Building Society as a secretary and she remained there until 1976. She then obtained similar employment with the export department of Silentnight Beds.
11) The parties married in 1976 and their first home was one of the flats above the car showroom. In 1977 they bought their first home for £7,000. The Wife continued working until July 1979 when she gave birth to Kelly.
12) In about 1978, Ps acquired the franchise to sell BMW motor cars. This was the start of a very long-standing relationship between the German manufacturer and the company. At that time, BMW had not made a great impact in the UK market and so the acquisition of the marque was, to a degree, speculative. In 1980, the Husband and his cousin, Simon, became Directors of Ps and the older generation slowly began to relinquish control.
13) In 1981, Thomas was born. Some two years later, in January 1983, the Wife returned to part time work with the Skipton Building Society. She continued to care for the children in addition to this remunerative employment. I am sure that her financial contribution was a vital ingredient of the family budget whilst the children were young. In fact, she continued to work with the Building Society until 2002. Although her normal working hours were classified as part time, she covered for colleagues who were absent either on holiday or through illness. Accordingly, I suspect that she was working about 2/3rds of full time. Over time, she advanced to become a mortgage adviser. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Husband confirms and concedes that she is (to use a somewhat old fashioned expression) "a fully entitled wife". Certainly, I have no doubt that she made a full and proper contribution to this marriage.
14) In 1986, the parties bought their final former matrimonial home—Throstle Nest. It cost some £63,000 and was initially subject to a mortgage of some £55,000. This house (which has 4 bedrooms and stands in some 2 1/2 acres) has been renovated and refurbished over the years. The Wife told me in her evidence that she had been responsible for this undertaking and had directed the works. She effectively described the home as her creation. She told me of her love for it and of her desire to continue to live there if at all possible. She said that she did not consider that it was fair that she should be forced to move because of the Husband's decision to leave the marriage. She acknowledged that in the longer term she might wish to move but she wanted the flexibility of making that decision for herself. She said that the house had a number of features which she considered vital to her wellbeing. In particular, she enjoyed its secluded, rural location on the edge of the Yorkshire Dales. She pointed to the fact that it was the only real home that the children had known. Although Kelly has bought her own establishment, she told me that her daughter continues to return "home" on a regular basis. Moreover, she pointed out that Thomas still lives in the property with his girlfriend, although he has made an offer to purchase his own property in the vicinity. The house has an agreed value of £615,000 it is subject to a mortgage of £114,700. The mortgage having been increased in about 1996 by some £60,000...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B (G) v B (A)
...T (D) v T (C) 2002 3 IR 334 C (J) v C (M) UNREP ABBOTT 22.1.2007 (EX TEMPORE) P v P (FINANCIAL RELIEF: ILLIQUID ASSETS) 2005 1 FLR 548 2004 EWHC 2277 (FAM) C v C (VARIATION OF POST NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT: COMPANY SHARES) 2003 2 FLR 493 2003 EWHC 1222 (FAM) WELLS v WELLS 2002 2 FLR 97 2002 EWCA ......